Basu: GOP bills distort issues, don't serve Iowans

Feb. 7, 2013

Reflecting on the damage to the Republican “brand” after November’s election, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal lashed out at what he called the “dumbed-down conservatism” of some fellow Republicans, and said the GOP needs to “stop being the stupid party.”

“We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters,” said Jindal, widely considered a rising national star within the party.

Some Iowa legislators evidently didn’t get the memo.

This week, nine House Republicans, led by Rep. Tom Shaw, introduced a bill (H.F. 138) under which a woman who deliberately ends her pregnancy at any stage, either through abortion or medication, could be charged with murder, as could her doctor. The bill enables that by declaring the cell that is formed when an egg and sperm meet, to be a “person” from that moment on.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that abortions must be permitted before fetal viability when the fetus can survive outside of the mother’s womb.

A 10th Republican, with 25 co-sponsors from his party, this week introduced an equally extreme bill (H.F. 66) to prohibit Iowa and all its subdivisions from approving of, or taking part in, a United Nations plan to promote sustainable development and environmentally friendly policies.

The U.N. plan is 21 years old and is voluntary. But that didn’t stop the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Ralph Watts, from comparing it to pornography and Soviet-style collectivism and taking steps to protect Iowa from its dangers.

Some state lawmakers seem to confuse Iowa with a country, by trying to make national or international policy. Some of these bills go so far as to reject the federal government’s actual authority. Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 claims state sovereignty and the right to reject federal mandates under the 10th Amendment. It demands that the federal government, as an “agent of the states, cease and desist” enacting such mandates.

One of my personal favorites among the bills introduced this week is Senate Resolution 2, which purports to act on God’s behalf in declaring Israel’s “right to exist, defend itself, and secure its borders.” Introduced by Sen. Brad Zaun, the bill offers as a rationale that God gave the land to Israel in the Old Testament.

“As the Grantor of said lands, God stated to the Jewish people in ... Leviticus 20:24: ‘Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey.’ ”

And that decision of God’s stands, explains the resolution, “Whereas, God has never rescinded his grant of said lands ... and Whereas, the Nation of Israel declared its independent control and governance of said lands on May 14, 1948, with the goal of reestablishing their God, and Whereas, the roots of Israel and the roots of the United States of America are so intertwined that it is difficult to separate one from the other under the word and protection of almighty God ...”

Leaving aside the separation of church and state, who endowed our Statehouse politicians with the power to know where God stands on the Middle East? Does the other side in the conflict not also have a God? What does the Palestinians’ God say?

But tempting as it is to laugh off these bills as silly efforts that will never be approved by both the House and the Senate, that offers limited comfort. Not only do they threaten to make Iowa a laughing stock and undermine our case for holding the first caucuses, they distort the issues and the Constitution in ways that serve neither the public discourse nor the people who would be directly affected.

They can call abortion “murder” until the cows come home, but that doesn’t make a zygote a person. Whatever penalties they impose will never end the practice as long as there are unwanted pregnancies and women who don’t want to be forced into motherhood.

Any short-term political gain with the far right wing of the party from slamming the U.N. or the federal government may backfire if the Iowa Republican Party is ultimately seen as irrelevant, and mainstream Republican candidates for president — the ones most likely to win a general election — bypass the state’s caucuses.

Meanwhile, what are these lawmakers doing for the good of the majority of Iowans, besides wasting our money and the Legislature’s limited time?